The most common mascara applicator is the mascara brush. A typical mascara brush comprises a core, bristles, a stem and a handle. The core is typically a pair of parallel wire segments formed from a single metallic wire that has been folded into a u-shape. Bristles, usually comprised of strands of nylon, are disposed between a portion of a length of the wire segments. The wire segments, with the bristles disposed therebetween, are twisted or rotated about each other to form a semi-rigid helical core, also known as a twisted wire core. The twisted core holds the bristles substantially at their midpoints so as to firmly clamp them. In this state, the bristles, which are secured in the twisted wire core, extend radially from the core in a helical or spiral manner. Collectively, the radially extending bristles form a bristle portion or bristle head. The imaginary surface of the bristle head, comprising all of the bristle tips, is known as the bristle envelope. Many variations of this brush are known in the art. Although the results of mascara application and customer satisfaction depend on the combination of product and brush, it is useful to separately discuss the performance of each.
Mascara Brushes: Characteristics and Performance
An ideal mascara brush may be thought of as one that performs certain functions. These include taking up, in one step, enough product from the mascara reservoir to coat all the lashes of one eye, without having to re-insert the brush into the reservoir. The act of repeatedly reinserting the brush into the reservoir has the effect of incorporating air into the mascara in the reservoir, which causes the mascara to dry out and become unusable faster than it otherwise would. Further, the ideal brush must transfer to the lash enough product to coat the entire lash. That is, having withdrawn from the reservoir an optimal amount of product, the ideal brush must now be able to transfer that product to the lashes. To some degree, the ability of the applicator to take up product from the reservoir and the ability to give off that product to the eyelashes work against each other. In the first instance it is desirable for mascara to stick to the brush so that it can be removed from the reservoir. In the second instance it is desirable for the mascara to unstick from the brush so that it may cling to the lashes. Having deposited the product on the lash, the ideal brush evenly distributes the product over all the lashes. Further, the ideal brush smoothes out any clumps of product which may have been drawn from the reservoir and placed on the lashes. The ideal brush is able to separate and comb out the lashes to give the lashes a clean, well groomed, finished appearance. The ideal brush can be used effectively to touch up or doctor the lashes as needed. Also, a brush that evacuates substantially all of the mascara product from the reservoir is ideal. To date, a single brush that performs all of these functions optimally is believed not to exist. This is because different bristle types and configurations are better or worse at one or more functions. Therefore, a typical mascara brush represents a trade-off between maximizing some brush functions at the expense of others. The finally selected brush depends on the nature of the mascara product with which it is to be used. For example, a mascara formulated to give volume to the lashes should ideally be sold with a brush suitable for that purpose.
The current state of mascara brush art is such that some parameters known to affect various brush functions have been identified. Generally, the values of these parameters cannot be adjusted to produce an ideal brush, that is, a brush that performs all the desired functions satisfactorily. Because of this trade-off situation, there exist a great number of variations of the typical mascara brush. Some brushes seek to maximize some functions at the expense of others, while other brushes attempt to split the difference, so to speak, by performing many functions somewhat satisfactorily. Arriving at these variations is frequently no more than selecting appropriate values for the various known parameters. A review of those parameters that are recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be results-effective, is in order.
The shape of the wire core. While a straight core may be the most common in the cosmetics marketplace, bent wire cores are also known. For example, a core in the shape of an arc that attempts to match the shape of the eyelid are known (U.S. Pat. No. 5,137,038, U.S. Pat. No. 5,860,432 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,237,609). This shape, it is supposed, may be more efficient at coating the lashes. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,761,760 the wire core is bent to form a closed loop. The purpose of the loop is to provide a reservoir for retaining and transferring mascara or other pasty product from the mascara container to the eyelashes. Because this brush applies a relatively large dose of mascara, it is suitable for increasing length and volume of the lashes. It may be less suitable for combing, declumping and separating the lashes.
Stiff verses flexible bristles. It is generally recognized in the art, that stiffer bristles are better than more flexible bristles when it comes to loading the brush with mascara from the reservoir. Stiffer bristles are thought to retrieve more product from the reservoir than do more flexible bristles. As the brush is withdrawn from the reservoir it passes through a wiper one function of which is to spread the product as evenly as possible over the surfaces of the bristles to provide a neater brush. In this way, portions of the brush with relatively high concentrations of product may be thinned out and some portions with relatively little product may be loaded. Generally, bristles that are too flexible will become matted down upon passing through the wiper and thereafter may remain stuck together because mascara is typically quite tacky. Having been removed from the reservoir, the loaded brush is made to contact the eyelashes. At this point, it is generally understood that a brush with softer, more flexible bristles in a dense array is better for transferring the mascara to the eyelashes by affecting as much transfer as possible. Once the eyelashes are loaded, however, it is generally understood that an applicator brush having stiffer bristles and a relatively open bristle envelope or sparse array (so as to be more comb-like) is needed to declump the product and separate the lashes. Given this situation, various attempts have been made to provide a mascara brush that combines the benefits of both stiff and flexible bristles. For example, a brush that is said to provide good application and combing characteristics is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,861,179. Disclosed is a brush having a combination of conventional soft bristles and conventional stiff bristles. Another example of a brush said to provide good application and combing characteristics is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 5,238,011 which discloses bristles made of a soft material having a shore hardness of 20 A to 40 D (a conventional bristle typically has a durometer of over 85 D), and a large diameter in a range of 3.9 to 13.8 mil (10 to 35 hundredths of a millimeter), which is at least 1.5 mil (˜4 hundredths of a millimeter) wider than a typical soft polyamide bristle. In this patent, the diameter is said to be sufficiently large to prevent too high a degree of suppleness. The resulting brush is said to have the same degree of suppleness or softness as a conventionally softer brush. Accordingly, the bristles are equivalent in stiffness to conventional bristles.
While these references may disclose brushes suitable for the application and combing of conventional mascara, currently preferred mascaras have significantly higher resting viscosity (two million CPS and above). These higher viscosity mascaras tend to collapse bristles of conventional stiffness, thus rendering a brush having bristles of conventional stiffness ineffective for purposes of application or combing. Accordingly, some of the forgoing brushes would not be suitable for use with such higher viscosity mascaras. Furthermore, these brushes do not offer the user the opportunity to compensate, at will, for one or the other shortcoming (i.e. bristles too soft or too stiff). Once these brushes leave the factory, they are what they are and cannot be altered by the user.
Bristle length and density. As a general rule, longer and more densely spaced bristles retrieve more product from the reservoir and deposit a thicker coating of mascara on the lashes than shorter, less densely spaced bristles. This is simply because in the former case there is more surface area on which to accumulate mascara. However, one problem with densely spaced bristles that carry a large quantity of mascara is that the lashes may not be able to penetrate the space between the bristles. This is simply because the lashes are so flexible. Also, because densely spaced bristles carry a lot of product from the reservoir while tending not to separate the lashes, there is a tendency for the lashes to clump together during application. With such a brush, it is not easy to obtain an even coat on the lashes. A lot of brushing, effort, skill and patience on the part of the user is required. In contrast, a brush with less densely spaced bristles may penetrate the lashes easily, but delivers less product, perhaps an insufficient coating to the lashes. To overcome this, the procedure must be repeated multiple times for each lash. It is generally understood in the art, that the more times the making up procedure is repeated, the more chance there is to mess up the entire application of mascara. The longer it takes to perform the application, the more complicated it becomes. If the product already applied to the lashes is setting up and drying out while new mascara is still being applied over it, an even, clean appearance may be very difficult to achieve. It may become necessary to clean the eyelashes and start again. Mascara application is known to be a bit of a skill and a bit of an art, wherein less is sometimes more.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,887,622 discloses a low density mascara brush, the bristles of which are spaced from 10 to 40 bristles per turn of the twisted wire core. As discussed in the '622 patent, then-conventional brushes had about 50 to 60 bristles per turn with the per-turn pitch being about 2 mm and the bristle diameter being about 0.08 mm maximum. It is alleged that 50-60 bristles per turn is sufficient to take up enough mascara to coat the lashes, but that brushes of this bristle density do not distribute the product very well, resulting in blobs of product and wasted time. The alleged improvement consists of reducing the bristles per turn to 10-40 while using bristles of a larger diameter (0.10 to 0.25 mm). Though there are fewer bristles to carry product, more product may carried by each bristle. The lower density permits the bristles to penetrate the lashes and provide an even coat of product.
Mixing bristle types. U.S. Pat. No. 4,586,520 disclose a mascara applicator whose brush contains alternating rows of long and short bristles. It is alleged that this arrangement of alternating rows of long and short bristles allows for easier application of mascara while simultaneously combing and separating the eyelashes. U.S. Pat. No. 5,345,644 discloses a mascara brush having two different types of bristles intermingled along the axis of the brush. One type is a smaller diameter (0.06-0.13 mm), higher melting point thermoplastic bristle, the other is a larger diameter (0.13-0.30 mm), lower melting point thermoplastic bristle. It is alleged that strong, distinct make-up effects are achieved with this type of brush.
Sectioning bristle types. U.S. Pat. No. 5,357,987 and EP 0511842 disclose mascara brushes having a bristle array with a discontinuous profile. There is a tip portion having one overall size and shape and a proximal portion having a second size and shape. The main reason for this is to provide a single brush in sections, each section of which is better than the other section at performing some application tasks.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,482,059 combines sectioning and mixed bristle types within one section. This patent discloses a mascara brush having three sections and three types of bristles. The brush portion has a larger diameter middle section comprised of a combination of soft and stiff bristles in random configuration, and two end sections comprised of hollow filaments which preferably become progressively shorter towards the ends of the brush portion. The end sections exhibit less bristle density than the middle section. This improved brush configuration allows for optimal one-stroke mascara application.
Shape of the envelope. The most conventional envelope shape is the tapered spiral or helical array of bristles. One variation on this theme is U.S. Pat. No. 5,595,198 in which a helical groove is present along the length of the bristle array due to the use of  specifically positioned, shorter bristles. The groove is for carrying larger quantities of product than would otherwise be possible. A great many envelopes shapes have been introduced into the art, each purporting to be an improvement on one or more aspects of mascara application.
Bristle shape. U.S. Pat. No. 4,993,440 discloses the use of bristles having capillary channels along their length. U.S. Pat. No. 5,567,072 discloses bristles with a slotted cross sectional configuration. U.S. Pat. No. 5,595,198 discloses bristles with an L-shaped cross section. Tubular bristles are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,733,425.
Other applicator features. Mascara applicators that are said to have performance enhancing features apart from the applicator head, are known. Ergonomic handles and comfort grips are known. US patent publication 2002-0168214 discloses a mascara handle grip made from one or more deformable elastomers and having a dual-tapered portion such that two tapered sections meet at a narrowest point along the dual-tapered portion, and wherein the cross section of one or both tapered sections is elliptical. The use of this or any other deformable grip on a vibrating mascara applicator system is unknown to the applicant.
Non conventional mascara applicators. In the quest for the ideal mascara applicator some have avoided the issue of stiff verses flexible bristles by not using bristles. U.S. Pat. No. 3,892,997 describes an applicator comprising a central shaft (or core) along the length of which rigid triangular plates outwardly project, many such plates being parallel to each other. The regularly spaced plates are reportedly suitable for loading, transferring, coating and separating. U.S. Pat. No. 4,545,393 described a bellows capable of being lengthened or shortened by the user as required. The stacked “teeth” of the bellows provide surfaces for holding mascara and the spacing between the teeth allows the eyelashes to be coated and separated. U.S. Pat. No. 5,094,254 describes a central core with a ribbed profile. The individual ribs provide surfaces for holding mascara and the spacing between the ribs allows the eyelashes to be coated and separated. U.S. Pat. No. 5,816,728 describes a beaded mascara applicator, that is a mascara applicator having one or more beads disposed on a central axle extending longitudinally from an elongated rod and handle. A first preferred embodiment comprises a single cylindrical bead molded from plastic and having a series of longitudinally spaced grooves along the length of the bead. A second preferred embodiment comprises a plurality of about 5 to 7 beads disposed on a metal axle and retained by means of a flat-headed pin. The beads are capable of individually or collectively rotating about the axle to create optimal mascara application and lash separation. U.S. Pat. No. 6,345,626 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,691,716 disclose a mascara applicator having an array of independent discs which compress during withdrawal from a container so that excess product can be removed from the applicator by a wiper. After passage through the wiper, the discs return to their expanded position by the action of a spring. The compressing of the discs during withdrawal allows a controlled amount of product to remain on the applicator for application by the consumer, and the returning of the discs to their expanded position by the spring causes the discs to assume a configuration which allows the applicator to effectively comb and separate the eyelashes.
As can be seen from the foregoing brief survey of the mascara applicator field, many innovations and proposals have been put forward. However, prior to the filing of a first U.S. application (U.S. 60/600,452; Kress; Aug. 11, 2004), nothing in the prior art anticipated or suggested a vibrating mascara applicator capable of substantially altering the viscosity of a mascara in a controlled fashion, measurably altering the flow characteristics of a mascara product at the time of application, nor the benefits of such.
Since the filing of the '452 application (Kress), a number of patent applications have been filed for mascara applicators that vibrate, oscillate, rotate, translate or some combination of movements.
WO2006/090343 (L'Oreal), filed Feb. 24, 2006, concerns an applicator for applying a makeup composition, the applicator may be a mascara applicator comprising an applicator element and a vibration source causing the applicator element to vibrate. The applicator is configured to be fastened onto a receptacle that contains a composition to be applied. The source of applicator movement is in the handle.
US2006/0272666, US2006/0272667 and US2006/0272668 (Wyatt, et al), filed Jun. 2, 2005 disclose an apparatus for applying a cosmetic, such as mascara to eyelashes. The apparatus includes a handle, a stem, and an applicator head coupled to the stem. An actuator moves the applicator head in one or more of a vibrational motion, rotational motion, circular motion, axial motion (parallel to the stem) or oscillating rotational motion. The source of applicator movement is in the handle.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,165,906, filed Apr. 10, 2006 discloses a mascara applicator comprising a head for manually gripping the applicator (that is, a handle), an axial stem and an application means. The applicator is characterized in that it comprises a means of rotation of the axial stem. The means of rotation comprises a fixed part attached to said head (handle), and a rotating part attached in rotation to said axial stem, and a manual means of activation and/or deactivation of the means of rotation. The source of applicator movement is in the handle.
Taiwan patent M315529 (HUANG, Guo Hua), filed Jan. 3, 2007, entitled Vibrating Cosmetic Case discloses a wand type applicator, attached to a handle and having a source of applicator movement in the handle.
US2008/0011316 (Malvar et al.), filed Jul. 6, 2007, discloses a mascara applicator that comprises a stem bearing an applicator head, the stem being received in and guided by the handle so as to be longitudinally reciprocal relative thereto. The applicator further comprises an actuating mechanism carried by the handle for moving the stem longitudinally back and forth relative to the handle. Thus, the source of applicator movement is in the handle.
US2008/0062678 (Levy et al.), filed Sep. 18, 2007, discloses a vibrating makeup device, which, in some embodiments may include a mascara applicator. The source of applicator movement is in a housing or “body tube”, which, in this case, means the handle of the device.
According to Packaging World (September 2006, p. 98), a company called “HERA” has introduced into the market “Mascara Auto Magic—described as the world's first automated electronically rotating mascara. The electronic-motion, “coil-type,” rubber-brush system is designed to make mascara application easier for consumers.” Apparently, this is a rotating-type applicator having the source of applicator movement in the handle.
These are unlike the present invention where the source of vibration (i.e. motor) is located substantially close to the applicator head, not in the handle, such that the vibration source is immersed in the mascara container whenever the mascara applicator is immersed in the mascara container. None of the foregoing references appreciates the performance and manufacturing improvements offered by a vibrating mascara applicator that has the source of vibration located substantially close to the applicator head.
Vibrating devices having a source of vibration located toward to the “working end” of the device are known. Patents to the Gillette Company disclose vibrating safety razors having the source of vibration toward the distal end of the handle. (See U.S. Pat. No. 5,299,354, WO 2004/073936, WO 2004/073938, WO 2004/073940, WO2004/073941). Even though the source of vibration is toward the working end, it is still in the handle of the device. Furthermore, for obvious reasons a shaving razor and a dental flosser are wholly unsuitable for mascara application. U.S. Pat. No. 5,299,354 discloses a vibrating wet shave razor. The be effective for shaving, the frequency of the electric motor is disclosed as being 5000 to 6500 revolutions per minute. The amplitude of the vibrating blade that is effective for shaving is disclosed as 0.002 to 0.007 inches.
WO 2005/046508 discloses an electric toothbrush in which the source of brush movement is toward the distal end of the handle. Even though the source of vibration is toward the working end, it is still in the handle of the toothbrush. Furthermore, despite their superficial similarity to motorized mascara brushes, the typical electric toothbrush also has a number of significant differences with them. These differences make a toothbrush ineffective for performing many of the functions of a mascara brush, as discussed above. Generally, toothbrush bristles have different stiffness requirements than those of a mascara brush, owing to their different purposes and areas of use. Also, toothbrush bristles are generally longer, as much as two to five times longer than mascara brush bristles. The toothbrush bristles are located only on one side of the head as opposed to generally surrounding the head. A toothbrush does not have a working tip at the distal end of the head as do most mascara brushes. The envelope of the toothbrush may be a two dimensional plane, rather than a three dimensional surface. Toothbrush bristles are generally more densely packed than those of a mascara brush and they are usually all the same length, unlike most mascara brushes which have varied length bristles. Toothbrush bristles are generally supported by a relatively large, flat base that is located at the exterior of the bristle array as opposed to the center of the bristle array. Such a base cannot fit into a common mascara tube and if it could it would become covered with mascara making a mess and wasting a lot of mascara. Owing to their many differences, mascara brushes and toothbrushes are generally patentably distinct.
Application Habits. While there are many variations in the way mascara users apply the product, there is some consensus on the best methods for so doing. In “The Beauty Bible,” (by Paula Begoun, 2nd ed., June 2002, Beginning Press, ISBN 1-877988-29-4), herein incorporated by reference in its entirety, the author recommends the following. “The traditional upper-lash application of rotating the mascara wand by round-brushing from the base of the lashes up to cover all the lashes around the entire eye is the most efficient, expedient method.” The author further notes, “Apply mascara to the lower lashes by holding the wand perpendicular to the eye and parallel to the lashes (using the tip of the wand). This prevents you from getting mascara on the cheek. It also makes it easier to reach the lashes at both ends of the eye.” Also, after applying the mascara in whatever manner, some women brush out the lashes with a separate brush or comb.